In the recent decision Mughal v. Bama Inc., 2020 ONCA 704 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court decision in an action alleging civil conspiracy, among other things. The underlying action involved a plaintiff seeking the return of his investment in a corporation. On appeal, it was alleged that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for and misapprehended the evidence to find commission of the tort of conspiracy to injure. The appellate court concluded that the trial judge applied the correct test for establishing civil conspiracy to injure as follows: Whether the means used by the defendants are lawful or unlawful, the predominant purpose of the defendants’ conduct is to cause injury to the plaintiff; or, Where the conduct of the defendants is unlawful, the conduct is directed towards the plaintiff (alone or together with others), and the defendants should know in the circumstances that injury … Read More
Toronto Lawyers for Large Debt Collection and Enforcement of Foreign and Local Judgments and Awards
Domestic and, US and Other Foreign Debt, Judgments and Awards We are often consulted or retained in connection with recovery of large local debt or foreign debt, including casino debt, or to seek recognition and enforcement in Ontario, Canada, of judgments, orders, or arbitration awards obtained in Ontario, other provinces of Canada, US and other foreign jurisdictions. We are sometimes retained to work with the assistance of lawyers practicing debt recovery in other jurisdictions, including, those located offshore. Claims on Loan Guarantee We can advise and represent those claiming payment on a guarantee, and those named as guarantor of a loan. Loan or Gift? | Loan or Investment? Disputes sometimes arise when either a payment advanced or transfer is alleged to be a loan rather than a gift, or alleged to a loan rather than an investment, or vice-versa. We have relevant experience in both domestic and cross-border litigation. Injunctions and Other … Read More
Recognition of Foreign Divorces in Ontario
In Novikova v Lyzo, 2019 ONCA 821, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the grounds in which foreign divorces are recognized in Canada. The parties in this matter are Russian citizens but after moving to Canada in 2013, became permanent residents of Canada. The Appellant, Mr. Lyzo, returned to Russian and started divorce proceedings in February 2016, while Ms. Novikova stayed in Canada. In October 2016, Ms. Novikova commenced family law proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Mr. Lyzo obtained a divorce from Ms. Novikova on June 8, 2016 in Russia. Ms. Novikova did not receive the notice of the divorce application as these letters were sent to her parent’s address in Russia. Ms. Novikova also did not receive a copy of the divorce order within the appeal period. Mr. Lyzo brought a motion for summary judgement to have the Russian divorce recognized and to dismiss Ms. Novikova’s … Read More
Part Two – Timing is Everything in Real Estate Agreements of Purchase and Sale
I had written a previous blog on the “time is of the essence” clause in real estate agreements where it was discussed that the strict adherence to any agreed upon time limits was generally the case. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal case, Fortress Carlyle Peter St. Inc. v. Ricki’s Construction and Painting Inc., serves as a reminder that the “time is of the essence” clause is not absolute and unfettered, and there are preconditions that must be satisfied for a party to rely upon and insist on time being of the essence. The facts are not overly complicated in this case. The respondent was a condominium developer in the process of acquiring properties for a proposed project in downtown Toronto. The developer entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) with the vendor to acquire the subject property. Although the APS required the vendor to provide estoppel certificates five days prior … Read More
Partnership Disputes – Dentists, Doctors, Accountants, Lawyers, Architects and Engineers
Partnerships Professionals often carry on their professional practice as partners in a partnership or limited liability partnership. Partnerships can be created simply by conduct and the application of the Partnership Act or by a simple or complex partnership agreement. Joint Venture Contract – Fiduciary Duties? In other cases professionals associate in practice by participation in a contractual joint venture which, depending on the agreement and the circumstances, may or may not at law also be a partnership but, in any event, may attract the duties and obligations of partners, including fiduciary duties. Sharing Space Some professionals may consider that they are only sharing space with other professional and may be very surprised to find that the arrangement gave rise at law to unexpected obligations. Duty of Honest Performance The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bhasin v. Hrynew, though not a case about partnerships, nonetheless has a wide-ranging impact on … Read More
Fork In the Road: Critical Considerations by Condominium Corporations in Anticipatory Failed Closings
In 1179 Hunt Club Inc. v. Ottawa Medical Square Inc., 2019 ONCA 700, the purchasers, Ottawa Medical Square Group, entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale to purchase condominium units owned by the vendor, 1179 Hunt Club Inc. The value of the commercial condominium units in the Hunt Club Project was $5.6 million dollars. Five days before closing, the purchasers, sent a request to the vendor, requesting an extension of time as the purchasers had not yet finalized their arrangements for financing. Three days before closing, the vendor advised that it would insist on closing, and if the purchaser could not close, it would exercise its rights and remedies under the Agreement for Purchase and Sale. On the date of closing, the vendor learned that the Land Registry Office had made an error in assigning parcel identification numbers. Although this error was ameliorated later that day, this mishap, prevented … Read More
Guidance from the Court – Procedure to Resolve Mortgage Discharge Issues under the Mortgages Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure
In Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation v. 1219076 Ontario Limited, 2019 ONCA 581, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to determine, the proper procedure to discharge a mortgage or contest the discharge of a mortgage, under the Mortgages Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure. In the lower court decision, Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation (“Sub Prime”), the second mortgagee, issued two urgent applications against 1219076 Ontario Limited (“121”), the first mortgagee, to obtain an immediate discharge of two mortgages on two properties placed by 121, by paying money into court, pending further court orders, or a resolution between the parties, at para 1. In its application, Sub-Prime did not specifically seek an order determining the balance owing for each mortgage. To support its application, Sub-Prime cited and relied on section 12(3), 12(9) and 22 of the Mortgages Act, R.S.O. and Rule 14.05(a), (d), and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, at para … Read More
24 the New 36? Court of Appeal Reaffirms Presumptive Ceiling in Reasonable Notice Case
In Dawe v. The Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that, absent exceptional circumstances, the presumptive ceiling for reasonable notice is 24 months. In Dawe, the plaintiff was a Senior Vice President of an insurance company and was terminated after 37 years of employment without cause, following a minor dispute relating to the purchase and use of promotional sporting event tickets. As a result, the plaintiff sued his employer for wrongful dismissal. Both the plaintiff and his employer moved for partial summary judgment on two issues: (1) the calculation of the proper notice period, and (2) the plaintiff’s entitlement to his employer’s bonus plan, at para 4. The plaintiff was successful on the motion for partial summary judgment and the motion judge determined that 30 months was the appropriate notice period and that the plaintiff was entitled to his bonus during this period. In … Read More
Obiter or Not? A Refresher from the Ontario Court of Appeal
The recent case of The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v VimpelCom Ltd., 2019 ONCA 354 [Catalyst], serves as a reminder that a court’s finding will not be considered obiter simply because there was another sufficient basis for the court’s decision. The Rule of Precedent The rule of precedent requires that courts render decisions that are consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts [Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186]. There are several well-known rationales for the rule: it promotes consistency, certainty and practicability in the law, sound judicial administration, and it enhances the legitimacy and acceptability of the common law [David Polowin Real Estate Ltd. v Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., 2005 ONCA 21093]. Ratio vs Obiter The traditional dichotomy of ratio decidendi (“ratio”) and obiter dicta (“obiter”) is important for the scope of the rule. Only the ratio is binding on a subsequent court. Ratio refers to … Read More
Arbitration Clauses Enforced as Non-Consumers Ejected from Telus Class Action by Supreme Court of Canada
In Telus Communications Inc. v Wellman, 2019 SCC 19, the Supreme Court of Canada has favoured arbitration clauses in staying the claims of non-consumers in a class action against TELUS. The Court’s decision reflects a continued commitment of courts to taking a hands-off approach in upholding valid arbitration agreements, while its citation of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s Uber decision indicates that other routes – such as unconscionability – may be pursued to challenge specific arbitration clauses. Facts A proposed class action was filed in Ontario alleging that TELUS had for a number of years rounded up calls to the next minute without telling customers. The class included both consumers and non-consumers (business customers). Each individually agreed to the same non-negotiable standard form contract. The contract included an arbitration clause requiring all disputes (other than collection of accounts by TELUS) to be mediated, and failing that, arbitrated. Ontario’s Consumer Protection … Read More
Ontario Court of Appeal: There is No Common Law Tort of Harassment
Merrifield v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 205 is the first case in which a Canadian appellate court has been required to determine whether a common law tort of harassment exists. The Ontario Court of Appeal has decided that it does not. Ontario Superior Court of Justice Relying on four trial-level decisions, the trial judge held that the tort of harassment exists as a cause-of-action in Ontario and that the elements of the tort are: Outrageous conduct; Intention to cause, or reckless disregard for causing, emotional distress; Suffering of severe or extreme emotional distress; and The outrageous conduct is the actual and proximate cause of the emotional distress. Ontario Court of Appeal The Ontario Court of Appeal held that, in sum, the four trial-level decisions assume rather than establish the existence of the tort or its elements. Contrasting the case at bar with Jones v Tsige, which recognized a new … Read More
Tests for Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering and Constructive Dismissal clarified by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Colistro v Tbaytel
In Colistro v Tbaytel, 2019 ONCA 197, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal in an employment dispute. Appeal: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Suffering In the appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that three elements comprise the tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering: Flagrant or outrageous conduct; Calculated to produce harm; and Resulting in a visible and provable illness. Objective vs Subjective Following its earlier decisions in Prinzo v Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and Piresferreira v Ayotte, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the first and third element are objective, while the second is subjective. The Court held that the second element requires the plaintiff to prove that “the defendant must have intended to produce the kind of harm that occurred or have known that it was almost certain to occur” [Boucher v Wal-Mart Canada Corp.]. It is insufficient to show only … Read More
Employee or Not? An Uber Problem to be Decided by Ontario Courts: Arbitration Not the Route
In its first reported decision of the year, the Ontario Court of Appeal has allowed a proposed class action against Uber to proceed in Ontario court. Facts The Appellant commenced a proposed class action in January 2017. They sought, among other things, a declaration that Uber drivers are employees of Uber and governed by Ontario’s Employment Standards Act [“ESA”], as well as $400 million in damages payable to the class for alleged Uber violations of ESA provisions. Prior to certification, Uber brought a motion to stay the proceeding, requesting the court to enforce a clause in the agreement that requires all disputes to be arbitrated in Amsterdam according to the law of the Netherlands. Ontario Superior Court of Justice The motion judge held that the arbitration clause was enforceable and stayed the action. Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s Seidel decision and the Ontario Court of Appeal’s TELUS ruling, the motion … Read More
Gilbertson Davis LLP Successfully Defends Against Appeal of Decision Enforcing Liquidated Damages in Settlement Contract
In Haas v. Viscardi, 2019 ONCA 133, Andrew Ottaway of Gilbertson Davis LLP assisted the plaintiff in securing his settlement agreement with a defendant (in an earlier investment fraud litigation) with a liquidated damages clause. Specifically, the defendant was required to pay $60,000 if he failed to make prompt payments under the subject settlement agreement. The defendant, after defaulting, refused to honour the liquidated damages clause. However, on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the motion judge upheld the liquidated damages clause and granted judgment. Our blog post on the motion decision can be found here. On appeal, in Haas v. Viscardi, 2019 ONCA 133, the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that the liquidated damages clause was an unenforceable penalty clause, and upheld the motion judge’s decision granting summary judgment. The Court of Appeal also enforced the provision in the settlement agreement requiring that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s … Read More
Court of Appeal Upholds Dismissal of Recognition Action Based on Limitation Period
In Grayson Consulting Inc. v. Lloyd, 2019 ONCA 79, the plaintiff obtained default judgment in South Carolina dated August 20, 2014 default judgment in the amount of US $451,435,577.37 against the defendant. The plaintiff sought a Mareva injunction (i.e. a freezing order). Although the Court initially granted the injunction, the Court later set aside the injunction in response to the defendant’s motion arguing that the Ontario proceedings were commenced outside the limitation period. See our blog on the motion decision here. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reiterated the applicable test from Independence Plaza 1 Associates, L.L.C. v. Figliolini, 2017 ONCA 44, being: (i) the basic two-year limitation period applies to a proceeding on a foreign judgment; and (ii) the limitation period begins to run when the time to appeal the foreign judgment has expired or, if an appeal is taken, the date of the appeal decision, unless the claim … Read More
Summary Judgment Motion Publication: Sentinels of the Hryniak Culture Shift: Four Years On
David Alderson, Senior Counsel-Commercial Litigation at Gilbertson Davis LLP, is the author of the chapter entitled Sentinels of the Hryniak Culture Shift: Four Years On, included in the Annual Review of Civil Litigation 2018 , (Ed. by the Honourable Justice Todd L. Archibald, published by Thomson Reuters Canada Limited) a copy of which can be accessed here, and which contains the following in the Overview: “Mr. Alderson has done a masterful job in reviewing the post-Hryniak judgment landscape. He canvasses whether or not our courts have embraced the advocated Hryniak culture shift in civil litigation through the simplification of pre-trial procedures and the principle of proportionality. Before embarking upon a summary judgment motion, all counsel should carefully read Mr. Alderson’s paper because it provides superb guidance concerning the prospects of success not only before the motions judge but on appellate review. Mr. Alderson’s paper is a comprehensive tour de force for all advocates.” – The Hon. Justice Todd Archibald, Ontario Superior Court of … Read More
Supreme Court Considers an ISP’s Right to Costs in Norwich Orders for Copyright Infringement
Norwich Orders have become a common tool to detect wrongdoers hiding behind the elusive veil of the internet. Whether the matter is with respect to defamation, intellectual property infringement, or fraud, the equitable remedy of pre-action discovery to compel Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to disclose a wrongdoer’s identity can help claimants determine their causes of action before they commence litigation. A question that has been raised, however, is who bears the costs of the Norwich Order? Is it the claimant seeking the Norwich Order or the ISP subject to the equitable remedy? To complicate the matter further, how does this interact with an ISP’s obligations under the “notice and notice” regime pursuant to Canada’s Copyright Act? By way of background, ss. 41.25 and 41.26 of the Copyright Act govern the statutory “notice and notice” regime for alerting alleged copyright infringers in Canada. These sections under the Copyright Act state that … Read More